Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-10-28

appellee has the right TO the mopey n,
&c the persons to whom they were 0r.s,
inslly given. It devOlved upon sppens.
to show 70 whom the pepers were deFr.
cred snd they have been in legal coD,er.
plation assigned 70 him. This proof,
wanting. Reversed and remarded. SIN
ton, j.
=. II. Morris executor IS. G. 3. wills
and wife; appeal from Bowie. The tes,sta,
Of plaintiff in error brought this sra
! against defendants in error &c reccyer
tract OF Isnd, CT in the event n.
court should be Of the opinion that !,
was not entitled to 4 judgment for ~
land, for decree enforcing certain lien,
thereon. Plaintiff sets forth his tile s7s.
ciaily aveTriDg that he loaned the d5isrl.
ant, c. 3. Wills, Sl50,snd for the purpose
Cf securing ssid loan the latter executed
to him deed for the land in cortroreyg
absolute upon its face. He also srey
thai at the same time he exeCGted to lie
defendant CT obligation binding h;usel
70 TecODTey the property upon the ffy
ment Of the money so lent, with the IL.
est thereon. Held: The TRANSACTIONS
alleged 10 plaintiffs petition was mere7
mortgage on the lsld TO secure II.
debt. Also, held: If the land in cCryO.
versy herein WAS me homestead Of it
PENDANTS the transaction could not tsE,
effsct either ss conditional ssIe or
mortgage, because the deed from defend
ant Wills Was neither signed nor aCEnUw.
edged in any manner by his wife De-
PENDANT Wills WAS permitted to test!7
Nil Erb6 oh ~
ing to show that tie land IN c0u;r0Vsry
WAS his homestead at the time Of the exc
cution Of the mortgage. Plaintiff gre.
this as error, stating the ground Of lis
objection to be thal the suit Tas 0ei,g
prosecuted by an executor and ths.
therefore defendant vas inCOmp-tpnt e
testify under article 224S, Revised Ststu:es
Hsld: That such testimony was nOI &
to shy transaction with plaintiffs testa-
tor, and WAS therefore admissible. /. IS
also held IN this case thai the h0mes.es
right may attach, though the wife reY5.
move upon it. 1. becomes the hcmes:eG
from the time Of its dedication rs suli
By the head OF the family 46 Tex f2,.
No error being found II the Judgment. !.
is affirmed. Gaines, j.
w. 81, King ct 81. VS.. John IrelElt
Governor; appeal from Jack. This suit
Is brought 10 the name Of John Irelsrt
Governor for the use OF Jack COuGE
sgainst King as tax collector aEd II.
sureties On his bond for tax moEey!C0.
lected By said King which ne failed u
turn over to that county. The bond sued
on Is Just such one as is required 70 &c
given by the collector in reference to u.
taxes due the state on property lying d
that county, and upon its face appeaa
to relate wholly TO the state tex on prop
cry IN said county. Held: II said bOLi
was in fact given TO secure JACK count!
in the payment of the county taxes t1i
might be collected by King, il matters 1@
to whom the bond is made payable
inures to the benefit of Jack county srd
can De sued on in the name of the Cover
nor for the use CT tnat county. Ia l1i
trial OF the cause in the court below TT
only evidence adduced TO show thst '1
bond in question was given TO secure M
county and not the state taxes VS.,
8 certified copy of the Dorl
Under the bond aud seal Of the COurT
clerk. Held: Insufficient to estsbla
that fact. To prove that the bond vi
given to secure the county taxes, tx
clerk should have been placed upon tie
stand as witness. Also held: Error g
admit rs evidence the ''county ledger" q
show the state Of the acc1un5 beLTeel
King and the county, ard the eI:el'
Of KiGg's defaIcatioDs. The entries Z
the ledger TO the debit Of the c0liec.9
are taken from the TeC6ips
given by him for the tax rolls when -iei
are delivered 10 him. These receipts s's
OF course good evidence against him, d.
the account made from them is the InsI'
statement of the CLERKS that he did g.W
such receipts and is OF course no moe
than hearssy evidence and ins6m!5si0.::.
For the errors Indicated the judgment :
reversed and the cause remandeo'
Willie, G. j.